Search results

Explores judicial attitudes in professional negligence cases affecting liability for property investment advice. Focuses on the standard of work required to discharge the legal duty of care and on apparent contradictions in approach by the courts. Reviews a series of cases which are taken to exhibit traditional attitudes to professional liability and studies modern cases which are irreconcilable with those attitudes. Includes liability to third party mortgagors and to third party mortgagees in an analysis of the duty of care, and considers the implications of the perceived expansion of the advisor′s professional duties, which include potential conflicts of interest and the dichotomy between the standards current among professionally qualified and unqualified practitioners. Suggests that judicial attitudes are influential in shaping the practice of property investment advice, but that this intervention is fraught with difficulties as it creates uncertainty among professional advisors about the nature of the tasks undertaken.